Lightsaber Balance

[PoiuyWired]

Nah, the short saber thingy is quite stupid anyways, yes I know luke did it before, but doesn't mean it is cause cause of it(and thank god there is no lightwhip in kotor). I would rather increase the dual wield penalty, and allow an extra ambidextility feat to neutralize them again. This would mean that dual wield with two standard sabers would cost an extra feat.

 

Well consider that ou need to get two saber in the first place for dual wield this won't be too bad of a thing. Also, the bonus on crystals can be nerf up a bit.

 

As for balance, what balance? I mean you are chopping at computer AI. If you want to be all story oriented rp like with single, you can do it. Same goes for a hack n slash feel doual with uber crystals. Computer AI have no right whatsoever to complain. That, and w/o any player-player interaction ther is no real unfairness at all.

[Jediphile]

That's a great idea, Jediphile! that would definitely work great. btw, I don't really know, what are these d20 and AD&D and D&D things?

 

D20 is a tabletop (also called P&P - pen and paper) role-playing system based on a dice with 20 sides to it. Hence the name.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabletop_RPG

 

Originally a company called TSR published the D&D game in the early 70s (it's THE orginal rpg). That spawned AD&D by the late 70s and AD&D 2nd Edition (now called 2e by the hardcore gamers) in the late 80s. TSR eventually fell apart and was bought by Wizards of the Coast, who revised the game around the year 2000. The new game was just "Dungeons & Dragons", but is often called simply 3e to distinguish it from its predessors and because WOTC (somewhat incorrectly) called it 3rd Edition, meaning it was the third edition of AD&D, yet they still called it D&D (which had gone through it's several revisions of its own by then and pretty much died).

 

The revised game became more streamlined, but many of the old fans (including myself) felt that it revised too much and so lost much of the spirit of the original, that it simply did not revise the system enough, or (in my case) both. Either way, 3e is at its very core mechanics very different from the earlier version of D&D/AD&D.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons

 

3e was succeeded a few years later by a 3.5 edition, known to fans as 3.5e. 3e and 3.5e resemble each other a lot. There are notable differences, but they are much closer to each other than either of them are to earlier versions of the game. Therefore they are collectively known to many fans as 3.Xe.

 

D20 is the RPG-engine that the new D&D game uses.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D20_system

 

However, D20 is just a system, so it works for other games. One of them is the most recent Star Wars RPG, which also uses the system. The KotOR games are based on D20 Star Wars.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Roleplaying_Game_%28Wizards_of_the_Coast%29

[SilentScope001]

As for balance, what balance? I mean you are chopping at computer AI. If you want to be all story oriented rp like with single, you can do it. Same goes for a hack n slash feel doual with uber crystals. Computer AI have no right whatsoever to complain. That, and w/o any player-player interaction ther is no real unfairness at all.

 

QFE.

 

If KOTOR was an MMO, balance is necessary. Since the only people you are fighting is easy AI...I don't see why we should worry about their feelings.

 

EDIT: Though the idea remains, how can you mod that into K1, TSL, and K3?

[Jediphile]

If KOTOR was an MMO, balance is necessary. Since the only people you are fighting is easy AI...I don't see why we should worry about their feelings.

 

I don't think it's really so much a question of whether the game is hurt by this as it's a question of whether the system is essentially broken as it is.

 

Sure, as long as KotOR-games are single-player only, it may be an entirely academic discussion, but it's still worth considering on the basis of whether it makes any sense at all or not. Consider the situation if someone played TSL and then began playing Star Wars D20 tabletop RPG thinking dual-sabers rule all. A person assuming that should be in for a nasty surprise, or at least should be. But the game would still have given him an incorrect impression of how these things should or should not work out, which is never a good thing.

[SilentScope001]

Sure, as long as KotOR-games are single-player only, it may be an entirely academic discussion, but it's still worth considering on the basis of whether it makes any sense at all or not. Consider the situation if someone played TSL and then began playing Star Wars D20 tabletop RPG thinking dual-sabers rule all. A person assuming that should be in for a nasty surprise, or at least should be. But the game would still have given him an incorrect impression of how these things should or should not work out, which is never a good thing.

 

...But it still is, essentially, a SP game.

 

Sure, you are in a party with other people, but rarely, if ever is there conflict between the other party members, where you go and kill each other. Many GMs hate that, so the party is a cohesive unit, working together for one goal, like the party in K1 and TSL.

 

So, the Party just completes quests effectively, and the GM always have the Party win those quests, because the Party is composed of PCs, which are better than NPCs. In tabletop, the NPCs still have no feeling, they are like AI. So the system still has not seen any faults...Only in an MMORPG, which involves combat with other players will this pose a problem.

 

Now, if people want to convert the whole system to involve Party on Party, like the PARANOIA tabletop game, where the party members has secret agendas and want to kill each other, then prehaps the system could be seen as broken. But in those games, the GameMaster has ultimate contorl over what happens, and the GM's word trumpts the rulebook, so the GM can intervene and 'fix' the munchkin carrying two swords.

[Jediphile]

Now, if people want to convert the whole system to involve Party on Party, like the PARANOIA tabletop game, where the party members has secret agendas and want to kill each other, then prehaps the system could be seen as broken. But in those games, the GameMaster has ultimate contorl over what happens, and the GM's word trumpts the rulebook, so the GM can intervene and 'fix' the munchkin carrying two swords.

 

If that's how you see it, then I think it would be more appropriate to say that the system is indeed broken, but then it doesn't matter much, since game balance is screwed up in the player's favour, and he or she needs to win out in the end anyway.

 

Either way, the system is still broken. It's just a question of how much we'd prefer it to be fixed, even if it's not all that important to the plot.

[SilentScope001]

If that's how you see it, then I think it would be more appropriate to say that the system is indeed broken, but then it doesn't matter much, since game balance is screwed up in the player's favour, and he or she needs to win out in the end anyway.

 

Prehaps I venture to say that most tabletop games, by its very nature, has to be unbalanced towards the Player's favour. True balance means that a Player would not be able to wipe out a huge battlion of stromtroopers, he'd just be captured and killed rather quickly.

 

Either way, the system is still broken. It's just a question of how much we'd prefer it to be fixed, even if it's not all that important to the plot.

 

Well, I just think it would be better for the players themselves to mod in the changes they desire. K1 and TSL had the same system for combat, so players who used these same tactics would be upset if it was changed in K3, only due to the fact that they now have to adjust, and adjusting is not fun.

 

If the gameplay is hard-coded in, I think it may impact your crusdade signifncatly, but if you can modify the gameplay by modding, then do it. Talking about lightsaber balance is nothing...doing something about lightsaber balance is needed. Besides, people who want replayablity value will download the mod (if I had a PC, I would download it, for fun).

[Jediphile]

Prehaps I venture to say that most tabletop games, by its very nature, has to be unbalanced towards the Player's favour. True balance means that a Player would not be able to wipe out a huge battlion of stromtroopers, he'd just be captured and killed rather quickly.

 

Just the opposite, I'd say (and I am a GM myself). The players in tabletop to have diverse abilities, so you often need to throw superior forces against them, so that they must use their various abilities and skills to maximum effect in order to triumph. Otherwise tabletop quickly turns into mind-numbing and pointless hackfests in my humble experience.

 

Well, I just think it would be better for the players themselves to mod in the changes they desire. K1 and TSL had the same system for combat, so players who used these same tactics would be upset if it was changed in K3, only due to the fact that they now have to adjust, and adjusting is not fun.

 

Erm, no. KotOR and TSL do NOT have the same combat system. It may appear so on the surface, but they don't on one very significant point - in TSL EVERYBODY has the same attack bonus. If you have a particular level (at least as jedi/sith, but then the player always is), then you have the relevant attack bonus, whether you're Consular, Sith Lord, Guardian, or Weapon Master - it doesn't matter. That was not the case in KotOR, where consulars, guardians, and sentinels had all different class-based attack bonus progressions.

[Rockstar]

Prehaps I venture to say that most tabletop games, by its very nature, has to be unbalanced towards the Player's favour. True balance means that a Player would not be able to wipe out a huge battlion of stromtroopers, he'd just be captured and killed rather quickly.

 

umm you are a jedi. Against, say 20 storm troopers, a Jedi could push the group infront of him over, force jump behind to avoid the flank and simply chop and block. The point of an RPG usually means you have a gifted player, in this case, a gifted Jedi.

 

My biggest arguement in this thread is that the standard saber ONLY has superier defense... what!? It can block better than any other yes but it also has the best offense too (unless you let somebody with two sabers get the better of you, but if you get somebody with twin sabers on the back foot they will crumble. I think that Anikin would have thrown away his second saber with Dooku when he got in close proximity as he was outskilled by Dooku anyway)

 

Here is a practical experiment. Lets use plastic weapons to simulate the light weight of a light saber. Get a plastic sword, plastic staff and two plastic swords. The hardest/fastest possible swing comes from the two handed swing. The staff has no advantage in the strength field but the long hilt does mean you can get some strong torque in saber locks. The twin sabers are weakest of all in striking however, remember you get the advantage of two strikes probably only 35% slower than the speed of the single blade. But remember foot work and body motion are big players in sword fighting too so it is all up to the skill of the user. If you got a dual saber wielder in close proximity they would be wisest to jetisen a saber due to the fact you would need to cross your sabers over to block any heavy strikes because a hit against one sword could send it into your body ... which means the loss of the battle and inebitably death.

 

Against a group of blaster or regular melee users: Dual sabers have infinate advantage as a light saber is deadly to the touch. The staff would also posses a degree of advantage here.

 

I guess it just really annoys me that the most popular weapon style among Jedi is ALWAYS the weakest? When it is clearly not the case.

 

Please critique my arguement above

[SilentScope001]

Just the opposite, I'd say (and I am a GM myself). The players in tabletop to have diverse abilities, so you often need to throw superior forces against them, so that they must use their various abilities and skills to maximum effect in order to triumph. Otherwise tabletop quickly turns into mind-numbing and pointless hackfests in my humble experience.

 

Eventually, however, they usually win, regardless of what challenges you throw at them.

 

Tell the players, "You lose, you die, The End" and you'll get flamed by your players.

 

umm you are a jedi. Against, say 20 storm troopers, a Jedi could push the group infront of him over, force jump behind to avoid the flank and simply chop and block. The point of an RPG usually means you have a gifted player, in this case, a gifted Jedi.

 

Exactly. You are already massively overpowered. It does not matter if you use one lightsaber or if you use two lightsabers. You are still killing off the NPCs rather quickly. Therefore, it still does not matter how balanced lightsabers are...UNLESS you are fighting against other players. When you actually do such a thing, then you start the balancing act.

 

I still ask that you do modify the game to suit your needs, just because doing something is always nice. Change the attack modifiers, etc.

[Glabro]

Could anyone please help me with modding this? I´ve spent the better part of today trying to figure it out.

 

I need to change all the single-handed melee weapons to 1.5 STR bonus (in the process, I´d probably need to disallow dual-wielding with them - consequently only allowing short weapons to be dual-wielded, further helping the balance), as well as removing the 1.5x STR bonus from the double weapons.

 

I´ve poked around in the .uti:s as well as the 2das (baseitems.2da), but no luck at all...

 

Failing all that, how would I edit the dueling feat?

 

Thank you.

 

I should also mention that I´m talking about K1 at this point, but naturally this will become relevant for TSL once the restoration project is out...

[Rockstar]

Exactly. You are already massively overpowered. It does not matter if you use one lightsaber or if you use two lightsabers. You are still killing off the NPCs rather quickly. Therefore, it still does not matter how balanced lightsabers are...UNLESS you are fighting against other players. When you actually do such a thing, then you start the balancing act.

 

Yes, but the fact is that if i use what is practically the most powerful style (standard) I need to attack my opponent's twice instead of once. Why should my player have a weaker swing when he really as the strongest swing... That is what really bugs me. The only reason you would ever use a standard saber is for role playing reasons... that sucks if they keep this system for the next game and bump up the difficulty